USDA Studies: Ivermectin for Tick Control http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8667385&dopt=Abstract Knipling-Bushland U.S. Livestock Insects Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Kerrville, TX 78028-9184, USA. Whole-kernel corn was treated with 10 mg ivermectin per 0.45 kg corn and fed at rate of approximately .45 kg/deer per day to white-tailed deer confined in the treatment pasture, whereas deer in an adjacent control pasture received a similar ration of untreated corn. Treatments were dispensed from February through September of 1992 and 1993, and free-living populations of lone star ticks. Amblyomma americanum (L.), were monitored in both pastures using dry-ice traps to quantify nymphs and adults and flip-cloths to assay the relative abundance of larval masses. Control values that were calculated for all ticks collected in both pastures during 1993 showed 83.4% fewer adults, 92.4% fewer nymphs and 100.0% fewer larval masses in the treatment versus control pasture. Serum ivermectin concentrations in treated deer averaged 21.7 and 28.3 ppb during 1992 and 1993, respectively. These values compared favorably with the goal concentration of 30.0 ppb which was anticipated under ideal conditions. This study demonstrates that a freely consumed, systemically active acaricidal bait ingested by white-tailed deer under nearly wild conditions can significantly reduce the abundance of all stages of free-living lone star ticks. http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=115671 The effectiveness of the endectocide, ivermectin administered daily to cattle infested with all life stages of B. microplus was evaluated. Cattle were treated at dose rates of 25 and 50 mcg of ivermectin per kg of body weight for a period of 21 days. While both ivermectin treatment doses were highly effective (>99% control), the 50 mcg/kg/d dose was more effective than the 25 mcg/kg/d dose against all life stages of the tick. The presence of ivermectin in the blood of the cattle caused high mortality in the ticks, as well as producing dramatic adverse effects in the reproductive capability of the ticks that were able to survive and detach from the cattle. Based on the results of this study, the potential for use of ivermectin and other acaricides with similar chemistries is encouraging. The use of these types of acaricides applied by different delivery systems, such as long-term boluses or medicated feed systems has great promise for future applicability in the Boophilus eradication program.... ...overall control achieved at both doses of ivermectin was >99% against all parasitic stages, the 50 mcg/kg/d dose was more effective (P http://www.afpmb.org/pubs/misc/researchreview2004/4b-Pound.ppt http://live.psu.edu/story/19217 Deer-free areas may be haven for ticks, disease Wednesday, August 30, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- University Park, Pa. -- Excluding deer could be a counterproductive strategy for controlling tick-borne infections, because the absence of deer from small areas may lead to an increase in ticks, rapidly turning the area into a potential disease hotspot, according to a team of U.S. and Italian researchers. "Deer are referred to as dilution hosts or dead-end hosts," says Sarah Perkins, a postdoctoral researcher at Penn Stateâs Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics. "They get bitten by ticks but never get infected with tick-borne pathogens, such as the bacteria causing Lyme disease." However, deer are critical to adult female ticks in the last stages of their three-part lifecycle. Ticks use them for a final blood meal before dropping off to produce thousands of eggs, Perkins explains. Currently, health officials believe that removing deer from the equation could disrupt the tick lifecycle and leave fewer ticks to feed on rodents, which, unlike deer, can transfer a range of tick-borne pathogens. Ultimately the tick-borne disease will fade out. However, previous field studies show that removing deer sometimes leads to higher tick densities and sometimes lower, and the outcome seems dependent on the size of area from which deer are excluded. "Very few studies have looked at how removing the deer affects the intensity of tick bites on rodents, and how it relates to the size of the area from where the deer are excluded," explains Perkins, whose findings are published in the current issue of the journal Ecology. Researchers first collected data from published information on tick densities in deer excluded areas ranging in size from roughly 2.5 acres to 18 acres. Next, over a six-month period, they captured rodents from a 2.5-acre deer excluded area in the Italian Alps in a known hotspot for tick-borne encephalitis -- a disease passed to humans through the bite of an infected tick. "From previous studies we found that tick densities decreased in (geographically) large areas and increased dramatically in smaller areas," suggesting that there is a threshold area - from where deer are excluded - for tick populations to either increase or decrease, notes the Penn State researcher. Statistical analyses of ticks on the captured rodents indicated that compared to the control areas, the deer-excluded areas hosted a significantly higher number of nymph and adult female ticks, as well as a high prevalence of tick-borne encephalitis. Because tick-borne encephalitis is transmitted only between ticks feeding on these rodents, the findings suggest how small deer-free areas could quickly turn into a disease hotspot. "This goes somewhat against conventional wisdom. When you remove deer, it does not always reduce the tick population," says Perkins. "If you were to exclude deer from hundreds of acres, tick numbers will fall. But in an area less than 2.5 acres, you are more likely to increase tick density and probably create tick-borne hotspots." Researchers say the study demonstrates how the strategy of keeping deer away may work only for large areas but is likely to amplify tick populations in smaller areas. Fragmented patches of forest and small parks that are off-limits to deer could also turn into a disease reservoir, they caution. "We need to be cautious about keeping deer away from small areas, even peopleâs backyards, as it might only lead to more ticks that are infected with tick-borne pathogens," says Perkins. She adds that forest areas deer consistently avoid also have the potential of turning into a haven for tick-borne disease. Other authors of the paper include Isabella M. Cattadori, postdoctoral scholar, and Peter J. Hudson, the Willaman Professor of Biology, both at Penn State University, and Valentina Tagliapietra and Annapaola P. Rizzoli, Centro di Ecologia Alpina, Italy. A grant from the Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy, supported this work. The Penn State Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics is at http://www.cidd.psu.edu/. Contact Amit Avasthi axa47@psu.edu http://live.psu.edu 814-865-9481 Contact Vicki Fong vfong@psu.edu http://live.psu.edu 814-865-9481 The Pennsylvania State University © 2006 http://www.wildlifeprotein.com/index.cfm/fa/categories.main/parentcat/16705

How interesting we all seem to agree about Faron going for a repeat in 5 yrs. not 10 (irrespective of the fact of his/her doctor saying she was now good for 10 yrs). My BFF (40 yrs now) is a nurse & nurse manager. She doesn't do unnecessary medical testing (for herself). She successfully overcame & beat cancer (had her lumpectomy in drs.'s office specifically to avoid hospital borne germs & infections). She had a colonoscopy 5 yrs. ago & had some polyps removed then & there (3-5, I forget) . But she was definitely told to have a repeat in 5 yrs., matter of fact, the last time I spoke w/ her she was getting ready for the repeat. She knows my medical history, that this ailment doesn't run in my family (or hers either). Yet when I reminded her I have no symptoms of anything like that, she pointed told me calmly, but factually, that in this disease, by the time one gets symptoms it's too late. My landlady (of 20+ yrs., also a nurse, in surgical & ICU recovery) has herself had bowel obstructions & intestinal surgery & she pointedly told me to have it done, that it FAR outweighs any risks. She also suggested I ask 2 things in having it done: lower dosage & split dose. My doc just told me I'll have to make those arrangements w/ the doc performing it. The thinking seems to be lower volume (less of that gook to drink & excrete); also split dose, half the night before the test, half the morning of the test. Apparently it makes for a cleaner read of the intestines. I told my doc (who knows I'm resisting) I'll do it w/in the year. He told me he did his & if he can do it, I can do it. Next time I see him I'm going to ask how his went. So look, here we are ALL reminding you that knowledge is power, just get it done! Just like I just did my mammogram, only delay was it's usually heck to get it scheduled. It's over & done w/ for another 2 yrs., I'm guessing. Just waiting for the results (I expect a clean result).

I've never tried taking THAT much apple cider vinegar - I only slurp like a half a TEASPOON! or a third of a capfull. I've heard of people that simply mix it in a glass of water and drink it and others that sprinkle it onto white bread and eat the bread. I can usually slurp it out of the cap just fine. I have found that once you open the bottle for the first time the vinegar kinda ages and the flavor improves (it becomes richer and less harsh). Since I wrote my response I have had another bout of freaky pains that took me to the hospital. I didn't think it was a heart attack, I thought it was something like a torn artery or vein. Extreme shooting pains from the center of my back radiating out to my sholder while I was walking the dog (like I do every morning). I got myself to the nearest hospital and explained to them that I have a hiatal hernia and that the pains could be connected to the three slices of pizza I ate late in the evening the night before and the fact that I had rolled over in my sleep and slept on my stomach. They listened but thought it was something more severe. They ran all the tests and everything came up clean, so they had no explanation for what was wrong. The pain went away in like an hour but since this was a large hospital I ended up staying there most of the day waiting for tests or test results before they would release me. I guess I will forever have this problem. But it only seems really bad once every 10 years so I think I can handle that.

I spoke to manufacturer and he estimates Colonix cost about $24 to make and you pay Dr Natura about 4 times that amount.The name Dr Natura suggest it should be good for you,but the process could rob you of probiotics,which backs up the immune system. Fortunately I found a formulation with similar ingredients cheaper and they give you a free Probiotics.Designed by a real doctor the Organicas Colon Cleanse does not contain any scary pics designed to induce fear and astronomical profits.I found the results were better than DrNatura without all side effects. I read that Colonix flush away probiotics making the bad microbes multiple making feel flu symptoms. Here is a link that might be useful: Dr Natura Colonix Cleanse vs Organicas Colon Cleansing